I don't think it was rubber stamped. The inventor and the attorney seem to be the same person. I suspect the attorney did this to test that it is possible to obtain a process patent without patenting some sort of invented mechanism. He seems to have made his point.

I think the purpose here is to be able to refer back to this patent if the patent office attempts to reject "process only" patents in the future.

It's actually quite clever.

Logged

There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force Šther.

I don't think it was rubber stamped. The inventor and the attorney seem to be the same person. I suspect the attorney did this to test that it is possible to obtain a process patent without patenting some sort of invented mechanism. He seems to have made his point.

I think the purpose here is to be able to refer back to this patent if the patent office attempts to reject "process only" patents in the future.

It's actually quite clever.

Of course, such a theory could always backfire.

As such a patent makes everyone look like clowns which would be good enough reason to reject any similar applications.

Perhaps I should whip up a batch of my wonder-refreshment...Consisting of 300-400 ppm HDO mixed in Dihydrogen Oxide Solvent & apply for a patent. [] It has pretty extraordinary refreshing qualities.

What recourse would I have against the patent owner if such "side to side", and "side to side swirling patterns" would cause the swingset to collapse? Or... if the swing is attached to a tree (as mentioned), would cause a person to smack into the tree (or support posts on the swing)? Or... (as also mentioned), there were two parallel swings and it caused one swing to cross the path of the other?

What recourse would I have against the patent owner if such "side to side", and "side to side swirling patterns" would cause the swingset to collapse? Or... if the swing is attached to a tree (as mentioned), would cause a person to smack into the tree (or support posts on the swing)? Or... (as also mentioned), there were two parallel swings and it caused one swing to cross the path of the other?

Bugger all I'm afraid.

There is no obligation on the part of an inventor to prove that their invention actually works, let alone prove that it won't maim people.

Logged

There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force Šther.

Interesting. In my job I was expected to regularly originate patents and we had a specialist patents department to help us convert our ideas into correct "patenteese" we also had advice on recognising what could be patented and how to make the best of a good idea. There have been several experts who originated fully legitimate "joke patents like this one of them involved a cat flap and a nuclear weapon.you can read about it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Paul_Pedrick [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]. It is interesting to note that this can be found I first heard of it around 30 years ago.

I have in the past successfully patented an application for a single capacitor and also a zero gain amplifier but we never made any money out of them (although they were probably used by several other people) I also was involved with successfully patenting ideas that are used in every mobile phone around today but that was about 20 years before mobile phones were invented and the military slapped a secret ban on their publication and even if they had been published they would have run out long before the technology was cheap enough to go public.

Note that the re-examination certificate removed all claims from the swing patent and effectively cancelled it.

And, so anybody with an idea, whether or not it it can be implemented files for a patent.

For example, the Permanent Magnet Motor:

http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=8w_XAAAAEBAJ&dq=Magnet+Motor [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]

In fact, the above just appears to be an inversion of the "Howard Johnson" motor which was also patented, but has never been successfully built. And now the patent has expired into public domain.

http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Howard_Johnson_Motor/#Patents [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]

If these junk patents can't be built within 24 months of the application, they need to be permanently wiped from the system and not allowed to be patented again (by anybody) without substantial proof of the concept.

One thing that is happening in businesses is that one person comes up with a concept and patents it, but then does nothing to move towards manufacture. Then someone else comes up with a similar concept for a different application. Then the original patent owner sues the second company despite not doing any design or implementation work.

So, if someone actually builds a permanent magnet motor that generates substantial power, then you can imagine that everyone that has filed a "concept" patent will try a lawsuit.

As far as the swingset.There should also be proof of originality of the idea.How many 6 yr olds haven't figured out multiple ways to move a swing?How many were scolded for the inherent dangers of sideways movements?

Clifford, good points, but I suspect it would take an army of patent examiners to implement. The USPTO is already way behind on their examinations, and I think it's getting worse.

True.So, one could give an "unproven concept/process" patent 2 years protection.

Then the patent could be amended with a "proof of implementation" within the 2 year period. Otherwise it would permanently expire and could not be patented except as a "proven" process (by anybody) under an entirely new patent application.

If one tries to fraudulently patent an unproven concept for 20 year patent protection, then any patent lawsuit would require proof that whatever was patented was actually capable of being built, and was actually built at the time of the original patent application.

As far as the Simon Lee Permanent Magnet Motor Patent, it should have been denied as a "concept" because it closely resembles the previous Howard Johnson patents, all of which apparently never were implemented. Any future PM Motor applications would have to include proof of production of a significant amount of energy.

Clifford, good points, but I suspect it would take an army of patent examiners to implement. The USPTO is already way behind on their examinations, and I think it's getting worse.

True.So, one could give an "unproven concept/process" patent 2 years protection.

Then the patent could be amended with a "proof of implementation" within the 2 year period. Otherwise it would permanently expire and could not be patented except as a "proven" process (by anybody) under an entirely new patent application.

If one tries to fraudulently patent an unproven concept for 20 year patent protection, then any patent lawsuit would require proof that whatever was patented was actually capable of being built, and was actually built at the time of the original patent application.

As far as the Simon Lee Permanent Magnet Motor Patent, it should have been denied as a "concept" because it closely resembles the previous Howard Johnson patents, all of which apparently never were implemented. Any future PM Motor applications would have to include proof of production of a significant amount of energy.

Er, well, personally, I don't think I'd like that too much. I think it would work against individual inventors, like me for instance! []

I'm working on a couple of inventions now. They should be filed this year. It's not likely I will ever construct prototypes. It just takes too much time, although I will probably create simulations, and perhaps animations, but those are more sales tools than anything.

The objective is to file, then try to license the patents to a coporation that will do all the heavy lifting, and it could easily take more than two years before they get to proof of concept, not to mention that it might take a year or two just to strike any sort of deal.

If I only had a two year window, I'd be well and truly up the crick.

Logged

There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force Šther.

I suppose that the risk of forcing patents to expire that the original filer does not have the resources to build is that "industry" could simply wait for the patent to expire, perhaps while developing their own version.

However, one of the patents that was posted here earlier was apparently patenting a solar concentrator and electrical transmission system to earth, but appeared to only be a high-level concept of such a system, something that is not new, and has been discussed for decades now.

While not knowing the parties involved, I'm doubting that the original patent holder is actually doing the very extensive R&D to get such a system deployed in the sky.

In fact, if I was building such a system, there was nothing that was included in the patent that wouldn't otherwise have been considered, probably in the first day or two of development.

If I was to invest a billion dollars to get the project from Day 1 to deployment up in the sky, I certainly would not be willing to offer somebody anything for coming up with a mirrored concentration system that really is no different from a basic Newtonian Telescope Design that is hundreds of years old.

Many of these designs have very specific plans, but I have no doubt that the ultimate application will be at least somewhat different (for example the swingset was shown with a flat bottom, but most swings I've seen have a rubber contouring seat.

I suppose the question really is whether an idea is "novel", or just "general knowledge". What makes something unique? Is there any real difference between salicylic acid and acetylsalicylic acid, which the answer, of course is "some difference", as well as a difference in efficacy and side-effects.

There, of course, is a rush now to patent DNA (something that is part of all 7 billion people on the planet, and has been passed down for hundreds or thousands of generations). But, I suppose it will be 20 years before there are any "real" applications for much of the information.

It's really all about teaching. If you can prove that you taught something new, you might get a patent. If you got a patent but didn't really teach anything new, the lawyers will do their job, and get you.

It's less about what the patent office says and a lot more to do with the real value of the invention.

Logged

There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force Šther.

With patents, the thing that's really important is what is in the claims. All the descriptive stuff is not protected, unless it can be protected by the claims, and that's the bit that the examiners are really picky about. In the transmitted solar energy patent that we looked at, if I remember correctly, the amount of new intellectual property that was protected in the claims was negligible, so all the other material in the patent was not protected, and probably could not be because it was not new.

So, the patent is largely a waste of time and money, as it does not really block anyone else from the field.

Logged

There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force Šther.